MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594319486 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.347.347

Results of a Phase II Study of Guadecitabine (SGI-110) in Higher Risk MDS, CMML or Low Blast Count AML Patients Refractory to or Relapsing after Azacitidine (AZA) Treatment

2016· article· en· W2594319486 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Sébert, Cécile Bally, Pierre Péterlin, Odile Beyne‐Rauzy, Laurence Legros, Marie Pierre Gourin, Laurence Sanhès, Eric Wattel, Emmanuel Gyan, Sophie Park, Aspasia Stamatoullas, Anne Banos, Kamel Laribi, Simone Jueliger, Luke Bevan, Cendrine Chaffaut, Rosa Sapena, Benedicte Samey, Fatiha Chermat, Sylvie Chevret, Lionel Adès, Pierre Fenaux

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecitabineAzacitidineInternal medicineMedicineGastroenterologyHypomethylating agentInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemMyelodysplastic syndromesPhases of clinical researchRefractory (planetary science)NeutropeniaBone marrowOncologyClinical trialDNA methylationToxicityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) have become the reference treatment of higher risk MDS, but the median survival of about 2 years obtained with AZA remains modest, and median survival after HMA failure is only about 6 months (Prébet et al, JCO 2011). Guadecitabine (GDAC, SGI-110) is a novel HMA dinucleotide of Decitabine and deoxyguanosine, administered SC, which results in extended DAC exposure. In a phase I-II study in AML (Issa, Lancet Oncol, 2015) a dose of 60mg/m2/day for 5 consecutive days was recommended. We designed a national multicenter phase II study evaluating the efficacy of GDAC in higher-risk MDS patients, refractory or relapsing after AZA (NCT02197676). Methods: Main inclusion criteria were (1) IPSS int-2 or high MDS, or CMML with WBC < 13 G/l and marrow blasts > 10%, or AML with 20-30% marrow blasts (2) Refractory to 6 cycles of AZA or relapsing after response, but without overt progression (i.e., greater than doubling of marrow blasts compared to pre AZA values) (3) Age ≥ 18 years (4) Normal liver and renal functions. Patients received GDAC 60mg/m2/d x5 d every 28 d until progression, death or no response after 6 cycles (extended to 9 cycles after the 20 first pts). Global DNA methylation was assessed at baseline and on d 8, 15, 22 and 28 of cycle 1 in blood, and on d 28 of cycles 1 , 3 and 6 in BM and blood ,using bisulfite-converted DNA followed by pyrosequencing technology measuring 3 representative CpG sites of the LINE-1 promoter region. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed on June 2016, with a median FU of 9.6 months Results: Between Aug 2014 and Jan 2016, 56 pts from 13 centers were enrolled, M/F: 37/19, median age 75 years [IQR, 69-76]. 15 patients had primary resistance after 6 cycles of AZA, and 41 patients had relapsed after a response and a median of 13 AZA cycles [IQR 9.75-23]). 15 pts had IWG 2006 progression between onset of AZA and inclusion. At inclusion, WHO classification was RCMD in 2 pts, CMML in 1 pt, RAEB-1 in 11 pts, RAEB-2 in 31 pts and AML in 11 pts; . IPSS was int-1, int-2 and high in 4 (6%), 27 (50%) and 23 (42%) pts, resp. (2NA), and R-IPSS was low, int., high and very high in 1 (2%), 3 (6%), 13 (26%), and 34 (60.7%) pts resp (5NA). 43 (77%) pts were RBC transfusion-dependent (TD) and ECOG was >1 in 5 (9%) pts. The average baseline LINE-1 methylation level in the 45 pts evaluated was 73% in blood and 72% in BM. One pt died before any treatment, and 55 patients received at least one cycle of GDAC, with a median of 3 cycles [IQR, 2-5.5]. 9 pts responded (8 after 3 cycles) with 1 (3%) CR, 2 (5%) CRp, 5 (14%) marrow CR and 1 HI; ie an ORR of 16% (95%CI, 8-28%). Responses were seen in 4/15 (26.6%) primary refractory, and in 5/41 (12.2%) relapsing patients (p=NS). On average, the maximum LINE-1 demethylation occurred during the first cycle on day 8 in blood (median -11.3%), and on day 28 in BM (median -3.1%). Median duration of response was 9 months including so far 2 responses ≥ 1 year (12 and 18 months). 49 SAE occurred in 44 pts, and were mostly hematological, with myelosupression in 35/56 (63%) of pts 49 patients ended the study, because of progression (n=20), death (n=14), investigator or patient decision (n= 8), toxicities (n= 6) and pt withdrawal (n=1). Median OS from inclusion was 6.7 months (IC95% [5.6-11.8]). 33 pts had died, because of MDS progression in 14 (42%), infection in 13 (39.3%), bleeding in 1 (3%), and other causes in 5 (15%) pts (2 UK, 2 general deterioration, 1 heart attack). No significant prognostic factor of response to GDAC, including age, sex, ECOG, TD, baseline Hb, platelet, ANC, marrow blast %, cytogenetics, IPSS, IPSS-R, type of AZA failure (primary or secondary), LINE1 baseline methylation or demethylation rate was found. OS was significantly shorter in pts with high IPSS (HR=2.1, 95%CI, 1.04-4.20, p=0.04), and with very poor IPSS-R cytogenetics (HR=4.3, 95%CI, 2.0-9.1, p=0.0015), the latter remaining prognostic in multivariate analysis. Using the recent prognostic model for MDS pts having failed HMA (Nazha et al, hematologica 2016), that includes ECOG>1, very poor cytogenetics, age, marrow blasts >20%, TD, platelets <30 G/L, 21/49 pts were classified as low risk and 28 as high risk, with a median OS of 9.2 vs 5.7 months, (HR= 1.7, 95%CI, 0.8-3.8, p= 0.16) Conclusion: Response rates with GDAC, in this population of higher risk MDS, CMML or low blast count AML with failure to AZA (and often with IWG 2006 progression) were modest. Tolerance was similar to that of conventional HMA treatment. Disclosures Beyne-Rauzy: Celgene, Novartis: Honoraria. Park:Novartis: Research Funding. Jueliger:astex: Employment. Bevan:astex: Employment. Ades:Celgene, Takeda, Novartis, Astex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207